Microsoft is making big promises about Longhorn and other product development, but will it deliver? InformationWeek spoke with company execs about initiatives in security, server operating systems, storage, convergence and more.

Anyone who has ever tested one of the Longhorn Beta releases knows how slow, unstable, and resource hungry it is. Microsoft is hype Longhorn and making all sorts of promises but so far its been nothing but disappointment in any respect and waste of developers' precious time.

I don't forsee a halfways useable version of Longhorn to be released within the next 2-3 years if at all. In the meantime everyone is discovering the pleasures of a fast, stable, secure, and virus-free operating system(Linux) and usually sticks with it.

I believe he meant the alpha builds that you can warez that everyone is referring to as betas. I'm a long time linux user (started on SuSE 5.2) and even I wouldnt try to compare an alpha grade product to XP - a product thats had two service packs and numerous patches.

Hell i wouldn't even compare longhorn pre-sp1 to XP of course its slow, unstable and mostly featureless it's an alpha os! Go try a linux distro made of 100% alpha software then come back and try to tell me it's stable because it sure as hell wont be and for good reason too.

Although we can't judge yet what Longhorn will be or what will it be not but I do hope they get it right, because I use Microsoft OS 99% of the time. Please don't judge a unfinished product yet. If you're happy with linux then good for u. So why are you still bothering with MS news pieces

The only thing missing from what was initially promised is WinFS (and possibly the sidebar).

MS announced a while ago that WinFS would enter beta around the time of Longhorn's final release. It hasn't been dropped. It was postponed due to feedback they received from developers at/following PDC 2003.

And lets be completely honest, who will miss WinFS or the sidebar? I'm using MacOS X, and believe me, I haven't used any of the features of Spotlight, above and beyond the usual searching via filename - and this from the perspective of a 'power user', just imagine how useless it will be for a normal end user!

As for side bar; it seems like more of a destraction that something that should be promoted.

WinFS will aid in searching, but that's only one aspect of its architecture. WinFS is about building an object-oriented, relational data store for items (files and non-file-backed objects). A universal method for accessing the store is provided, and the store can span and be synced across multiple volumes and devices. Items in the store have types defined in common, shared schemas. New types can be created or existing ones extended to better address the needs of a specific domain.

It does exist. While not available to the general public, there have been builds distributed to developers. It was postponed to add features those developers asked for without causing these additions to push back to OS release. Saying it doesn't exist doesn't make it true.

Unlike most people, I think Longhorn will be an awesome operating system once finished. Alot of people are already putting Longhorn down without even knowning what it is really.

It doesn't suprise me at all: there're even more ms-haters now than before. But I doubt we can rely on ms-haters for objective opinions.

Longhorn is still a baby. It hasn't really matured yet. But already, there are new stuff that really catch my attention: WinFX, Indigo, ect. Microsoft did a big step forward in the development area. It's nice really.

I can't wait for further development. I do agree that up to now, the few longhorn builds that we got weren't really amazing but never forget that beta 1 has not been released yet! All we got were some alpha pieces.

First Of all, WinFS will not make it to Longhorn, second, I also hope Longhorn will be much better than the current products (*cough* XP *cough*) but I guess i'll wait for the release to make a final opinion (Since I only beta test OSS apps)

The underlying premise of this topic is that the service model will triumph in the software industry because it will lead to happier customers. In order to have a workable service model, you must have source to the apps and you must be able to change them.

If the above holds true, then I wish Microsoft well, because I believe they are fighting a battle that cannot be won until they change from within, something that the company will take a long time to see.

The only people that I know use Windows is because they have locked themselves into the platform and do not know how to get out or they do not understand what the word platform or operating system means.

The former knows the pains of having to deal with binary undocumented file formats, undocumented over the wire protocols and the arrogance of a company that dictates when and how you can change your infrastructure, because ultimately it is their product and their "source code".

The latter does not care and will happily use anything that is preloaded in the box. The first OEM to create an Apple-like experience at $300 box, which I predict will happen in the next two years through the combination of KDE 4 and cheap hardware, will get all of these users and make millions in the process.

Their only hope is litigation, digital restriction management and the like. Microsoft will not go away, but by the time that they undergo an IBM-like transformation, a lot will have changed. They can do it and they will do it, but only when they absolutely have to, which will be around 2012-15.

The underlying premise of this topic is that the service model will triumph in the software industry because it will lead to happier customers. In order to have a workable service model, you must have source to the apps and you must be able to change them.

If you mean service oriented architectures, then you're simply not familiar with what a load of hot air it is. It isn't even anything new - it's twenty year old ideas regurgitated. Many in the industry are trying to hype it into a big thing, but no one is doing anything with it.

Their only hope is litigation, digital restriction management and the like. Microsoft will not go away, but by the time that they undergo an IBM-like transformation, a lot will have changed.

That won't happen. To initiate that change you have to have the will to do it from the top of the organisation down, and Microsoft's current attitudes, practices and methods are extremely deeply embedded into the organisation. All of the top management, including Gates and Ballmer, would simply have to go.

Microsoft are not a real in company in that they've been living in a dream world since they were started. We all know that companies large and small have to change, change personnel and change management all the time. Not so with Microsoft, and they're fighting desperately not to have to.

That won't happen. To initiate that change you have to have the will to do it from the top of the organisation down, and Microsoft's current attitudes, practices and methods are extremely deeply embedded into the organisation. All of the top management, including Gates and Ballmer, would simply have to go.

True. IBM regularly replaces its CEOs. Replacing the CEO in any company generally leads to top management changing. With such a policy, you tend to have a bit more flexibility in how much a company can and is willing to adapt.

With Microsoft, leadership has only changed once, from Gates to Ballmer, and even that change isn't a complete change since Gates is still pulling the strings. Unless there's a riot at the annual stockholder's meeting and heads start to roll, I don't expect to see Microsoft go any dramatic changes.

my team and i will be pushing to upgrade our clients to it. our platform is already mostly MS and Cisco. Last year we got rid of our SUSE linux firewall and replaced it with MS ISA, a superior enterprise product.

Why would you replace an open source Linux Firewall with such an expensive and horrible product like ISA Server??
A Linux Firewall is much more stable and secure.

With linux you can strip the complete OS and kernel to run only what you need for firewall support, which is much more secure and requires less expensive hardware and licenses.
I don't want a firewall that needs a reboot every week.

Every platform has it's advantages, Windows is great for Desktop use, Linux is great for the backoffice.
When you want a solution for something you should choose the platform that fits your needs in the best way, that is not possible when you use only one platform like Microsoft or Linux.

And lets be completely honest, who will miss WinFS or the sidebar? I'm using MacOS X, and believe me, I haven't used any of the features of Spotlight.

Since I've been using Spotlight, I never used Finder again. Spotlight is amazing and a great achievement (like Beagle for Linux, but still a little more advanced). They could implement remote indexing though (both Spotlight and Beagle).

Why would you replace an open source Linux Firewall with such an expensive and horrible product like ISA Server??

If everyone was a good system admin, some of us wouldn't have a job. I hope more and more people continue to do such things for the sake of our jobs :-)

Last year we got rid of our SUSE linux firewall and replaced it with MS ISA, a superior enterprise product.

I'm sure you and your users will notice the difference ;-). Anyone who is worth their salt knows that Microsoft's ISA and Proxy server stuff is junk. If you spend lots of money on it (and Cisco?!), you shouldn't be working in IT. I'm sure your users constantly tell you that as well ;-).

The following organisations/web sites were hacked in the last 18 months:

debian
gnu
fsf
firefox
plus lots more!!! It was all over the net last year!!

Thats why we use Microsoft ISA Server and not some over-rated OSS.

Wow, to think that most security professionals waste time with a thorough analysis of network use, requirements and other cirtical factors before making a determination for applications and hardware to deploy. Your method is much more efficient.

But don't forget to add MS UK to your little list there. They were hacked a couple of times over the last 18 months or so.
Oh, wait a minute...! I guess we can't add them. It's probably safe to say that they weren't running some over - rated OSS so they don't count, right?

Don't worry, you'll be ok. I'm sure you and your team will do a much better job of deploying ISA than those clowns did.

No point even getting into the fact that a misconfigured or unpatched server can be hacked through firewalls of all shapes, sizes and license-type. That would just confuse the issue with the facts.

The underlying premise of this topic is that the service model will triumph in the software industry because it will lead to happier customers. In order to have a workable service model, you must have source to the apps and you must be able to change them.

"If you mean service oriented architectures, then you're simply not familiar with what a load of hot air it is. It isn't even anything new - it's twenty year old ideas regurgitated. Many in the industry are trying to hype it into a big thing, but no one is doing anything with it. "

No I don't think he means SOA I think he means a FOSS software ecosystem support by fee for services and support rather than proprietary shrink wrapped software and CAl's

Looking for isa server 2004 and it seems that there are no secunia advisories about it. Could it be that MS finally released an unbreakable system? Or is it because nobody's looking for security flaws?

On ISA server 2000 Currently, 0 out of 7 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

If anyone knows about existing products from FOSS that are equivalent to this please let me know